|
Please login to reply
| 2 of 2 |
|
|||||
|
rafvne2
Posted at 30/10/2009, 13:40
|
|||||
|
i think that politicians should be held accountable for the promises they make during their campaigns. if someone was promising that he will do something, and based on that you vote for him, then if that politician didn't follow thru with what they have promised, they should be placed in front of the jury that will decide if it was his fault why something he promised didn't get done. i mean it's like a criminal offense. if you mislead one person for the purpose of personal gain, you can be brought up in front of the judge. and now politicians are misleading millions, and what... nothing? so it would be great if we had the power to vote for every bill that is being passed... no lobby could pay off everyone. now all the lobbyist have to do is donate enough money to few politicians campaigns, and then they in turn will return a favor to those big companies lobbyist. so it would be nice, but does anyone think that they are eager to give up their power? i don't think so! |
|||||
|
fast_tadpole
Posted at 01/11/2009, 07:24
|
|||||
|
one aspect of this film explores the idea of group sharing of resources and information on a mass scale. it can be applied to business, advice, democratic governance, products, software and even living space. it creates an market where you invest time/effort and in return are accepted into a world of free products, services and information. i'd have to compare it with a ratio based torrent tracker with an ebay for everything and your capital is your reputation and contribution to the community. it implies this transaction/sharing medium to be the internet, for efficiency but there is no reason it could not be transplanted to the meatspace (real world). a lot of applications of this idea would be better served offline, the library for example. the potential problems i can see in this model is hijacking of identity, spamming, censorship, potential mass influence from lobbyists, special interest group, corrupt administration or corporate interests used to sway opinion, votes or capital via block voting or multi-user accounts to concentrate reputation capital. faith and trust are a backbone for many of the current projects and in an ideal world that would be enough. with reputation used a capital it can be exploited through a the many ways the current market forces exploit money. lessons should be learned from the mistakes of usury, fraud, leveraging and collusion. it would be more difficult though since you cannot realistically have a fractional reserve of people but we should be wary of manipulation. a primary issue i see is the fact information could be largely based on opinion and not proofs, especially applicable to the long term or point of no return decisions based the tapping into the public mind. majority opinions are not always correct and are often quite the opposite. we'd be prey to groupthink in this model without proper regulation, identity verification and security. to avoid an orwellian model taking this market over there would have to be absolute transparency and accountability on all levels from the gatekeepers (isps, admins, etc.) to the users. if we can achieve that then anything is possible. it's a good basic idea, it is an old idea given new life and is applicable in many situations today but by no means any situation. further thought into the pitfalls of such a system need to be addressed before the agenda is pushed forward across the board. |
|||||
|
toekneebullard
Posted at 01/11/2009, 09:44
|
|||||
spend a lot on advertising... lobbying would still exist, it would just look a lot more like advertising. politicians lobby the vot3rs every time they come up for a new vote. you'd still have the best funded people having the loudest voice. my issue with this film is that most of the examples they give are opt-in situations. the whole world doesn't vote for the football club, the people who care enough about it do. i don't know a thing about football...you wouldn't want me weighing in on who's playing what position. with government, there's very little "opt-in". it's generally for everyone. you couldn't opt-out of paying taxes for things you didn't support, otherwise there wouldn't be enough funding for all the projects. we vote people into the government, then they have certain government employees focus on specific things. am i supposed to make decisions on everything from road maintenance schedules to the brand of plastic fork used in the veteran's hospital? budgeting alone requires knowledge of very specific details...how does every citizen know every detail of a budget's requirements? they kept saying "the old way of thinking was that everyone is dumb, but that's not true." i'd love to live in a world where everyone had a good head on their shoulders, but that's not the truth. california is a great example. the citizens get to vote on a lot of specific things, and they almost always vote for lower taxes, while still asking for lots of government programs to help people out. so yes, they're being gracious in helping out others with programs, but they're being short-sighted by voting against taxes to fund these things. now the state is broke. |
|||||
|
Cra-Z
Posted at 02/11/2009, 20:56
|
|||||
|
thanks a lot for sharing this video. i personally loved it. the future is a very different place from anything that's been seen before. |
|||||
|
fast_tadpole
Posted at 05/11/2009, 06:30
|
|||||
|
accountability and transparency via public scrutiny were very good points brought up in this movie. there are too many 'closed door' meetings. government in of itself is a great thing to manage and express the peoples' interests, that's what it was designed to do. a democratic republic is a from of governance that allows participation from the citizens legislated under the rule of law. that kind of country does not exist on this planet despite the push to 'democratize' the world. that ideological system was hijacked by bankers and corporations and they leverage their power, which is based primarily in money and law the democratic republic has transformed into a corporate oligarchy which is the main form of governance today. the idea of a reputation based aspect to the economy that would hold real currency is fascinating and worth discussion and further exploration. the pooling of group knowledge can be good if it is not infiltrated by corporate and special interests disproportionately. i point to wikipedia as a good example of both the good and bad points to this model. there is the illusion of democracy, banking and law but both are bought and paid for and the mirage is wavering. lady justice leans no longer to the scales of justice but the scales of money. laws are lobbied for and by and in many cases written by and enforced by corporations. our media is owned by only six corporations and that manipulated public perception of this injustice because they work as a collusive force in the broadcaster sponsor relationship. the laws and systems need to be overhauled from their current state in order to shift legal and economic powers back to the justice for the people and not the corporations. corporate law, corporate business, corporate economy, corporate culture, corporate banking, corporate health, corporate prisons and now we're seeing a an unhealthy rise in a more blatant corporate military and enforcement sector. i think we have identified the problem quite succinctly, and it asks the question "what will we do to take our power and freedom back?". us now begins on that discussion but we need to know what is broken before we can fix it and avoid making the same mistakes as the old system. i made a conversion of the us now film to xvid/avi let me know if anyone would be interested in downloading via bittorrent. more on corporatism: the shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism (2007) http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine  movie: the corporation (2003) http://www.thecorporation.com/ this film demonstrates some of the fatal flaws involved in computer based voting and should be considered if a technological voting process for the people were to evolve: hacking democracy (2006) http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/
|
|||||
|
khephra
Posted at 05/11/2009, 21:34
|
|||||
i greatly enjoyed this documentary! cheers to the op!  here is the review i wrote for it: strategies for revolutionaries: government 2.0 (http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wordpress/?p=2484) .
|
|||||
|
| 2 of 2 |
|
|||||
